Ghostrider Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 The law applies to us all and should be seen to be so. And that is precisely where the whole shebang goes rotten on a local level, where it directly and continually affects us all. An officer rolled his work vehicle at the top of the Sound Brae, how long ago now, getting in for 3 years? Had it been anyone else they'd have been in court within the year on at the very least a "Driving without due care and attention" rap. Has he? Maybe he has, but its never been reported in any of the local media I read. If I were to be stopped by the self same officer, and he tried to charge me with a driving offence, how am I supposed to take him, and it seriously? If he can leave a car lying on its side against someone's garden wall and walk away apparently scot free, he has absolutely no moral ground to stand on trying to call me to account for doing the same. Our local second in command got suspended while being investigated for a repeat offence which severely compromised justice being done locally, yet she was "allowed" to quietly "retire" (no doubt with a pension) without any findings of said enquiry being made public, as far as I'm aware.... While I'm not arguing that she had the right to "retire" and claim whatever pension she did, I am arguing that as a public servant we, the public had a right to know if there was any foundation to the allegations made against her, and if there was to what extent, if any, justice locally was compromised. A woman nearly got killed in a wreck with a truck out the North Road, how long ago, again nearly three years ago isn't it. A Police car was an integral factor within the overall incident, yet what do we know about the level of culpability, if any, on their part. As far as I am aware, only a statement from the very same second in command who is now "retired", issued IMHO far, far too soon for the full facts of the incident to have collated, reviewed and considered adequately to reach a full, fair and accurate conclusion, that the vehicle "in no way contributed" or words to that effect. A large part of what destroys trust and confidence in the local police is that they themselves either never get to realise and understand, or then know, but don't care to change it, just what sort of a place Shetland is. The local grapevine is such, that any sort of notable incident of any kind can be known about by anyone who cares to know within hours of its occurance, it also only takes being round the town for a few weeks and anyone with a good memory will know the face, name and number of every officer in that station. Put the two together and you get what we have, a situation where whenever an officer is involved in any sort of incident, a large proportion of the population know exactly who it is. They remember it, and unless some measure is taken against the oficer which is known/visible publically, they understandly presume that they have walked scot free. Over a bit of time that quickly gets to the stage that as far as those folk are concerned, there's a worrying percentage of the local station who've "gotten away" with this or that. Confidence and trust in those individuals in particular, and in the whole Police machine quickly vanishes as a result. It may well work to have the "trust us, we'll deal with it internally" attitude in a larger town or city, or even in other rural areas, where incidents involving an officer may not be so readily remembered and/or fewer folk know most of the local staff's faces, names etc, but its a rod for their own backs round here. If the local police expect the public to have full confidence and trust in them, they need to seriously address the issue of "the law seen to be applied" to them, they need to go out of their way and demonstrate that it has in each and every case. Otherwise they have what they have, a very "them and us" situation with a large chunk of the population, and SOAB's like me sniping from the sidelines every so often. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 I don't have a problem with the police, I even have a family member in the 'force' down south, I'm biased but I think he's allright, but then who knows what he turns into when the vest and hat go on? Never having any serious dealings with the police, the couple I have had, the attitude of them has been atrocious to say the least, even with keeping my mouth shut. Styumpie was right with the 'type' of personality, the psychological testing and selection of police officers, must favour these sort of people. This G20gate and similar incidents just makes my blood boil. Where was the justification in throwing this guy down onto the pavement? It reminds me of the Officer Riveria videos on A pretty extreme example of 'Police Officer' Syndrome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twerto Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 not the uk but In Strasbourg, the day after the NATO meeting, a video of cops throwing stones to the ppl in the march. http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2009/04/08/strasbourg-la-video-qui-embarrasse-la-police_1178045_3224.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 The very old riot act would seem perfect for situations like this Proclamation of riotous assemblyThe act created a mechanism for certain local officials to make a proclamation ordering the dispersal of any group of more than twelve people who were "unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously assembled together". If the group failed to disperse within one hour, then anyone remaining gathered was guilty of a felony without benefit of clergy, punishable by death. The proclamation could be made in an incorporated town or city by the Mayor, Bailiffs or "other head officer", or a Justice of the Peace. Elsewhere it could be made by a Justice of the Peace or the Sheriff or Under-Sheriff. It had to be read out to the gathering concerned, and had to follow precise wording detailed in the act; several convictions were overturned because parts of the proclamation had been omitted, in particular "God save the King".[citation needed] The wording that had to be read out to the assembled gathering was as follows: Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the act made in the first year of King George, for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God Save the King! [edit] Consequences of reading the proclamationIf a group of people failed to disperse within one hour of the proclamation, the act provided that the authorities could use force to disperse them. Anyone assisting with the dispersal was specifically indemnified against any legal consequences in the event of any of the crowd being injured or killed. Because of the broad authority that the act granted, it was used both for the maintenance of civil order and for political means. A particularly notorious use of the act was the Peterloo Massacre of 1819 in Manchester. [edit] Other provisionsThe act also made it a felony punishable by death without benefit of clergy for "any persons unlawfully, riotously and tumultuously assembled together" to cause (or begin to cause) serious damage to places of religious worship, houses, barns, and stables. In the event of buildings being damaged in areas that were not incorporated into a town or city, the residents of the hundred were made liable to pay damages to the property owners concerned. Unlike the rest of the act, this required a civil action. In the case of incorporated areas, the action could be brought against two or more named individuals. Prosecutions under the act were restricted to within one year of the event. What was this innocent passerby doing being near this riot. Its not as if it was a surprise event. Picture yourself as a cop in a line being stoned and bottled (the rioters were not little innocents having fun. they are groups of anarchist activists). What do you expect him to do when a man approaches him. your being attacked your defend your space and then workout whats happening. If the police were not guilty in the tube shooting then there is no way that charges other than PC inspired ones being issued. If in 1715 a person was present then he was guilty of riot. It is sad that a man died but he died of a heart attack not a beating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nederlander Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 ^ Have you actually seen the video? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Inky Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 What was this innocent passerby doing being near this riot. He was walking home from work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insouciant Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 Didn't he try leaving via other routes first but they were blocked off by police? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 The very old riot act would seem perfect for situations like this Proclamation of riotous assemblyThe act created a mechanism for certain local officials to make a proclamation ordering the dispersal of any group of more than twelve people who were "unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously assembled together". If the group failed to disperse within one hour, then anyone remaining gathered was guilty of a felony without benefit of clergy, punishable by death. ^^ All MP's and MSP's would be at the head of the queue for the gallows! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nederlander Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/7990188.stm Just goes to show that it's not all as hush hush as some say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 in deed i have i found the first 15 seconds the most interesting. who was innocently walking home would be casual strolling diagonally in front of the police control line. He was grinning just before the second push. sorry folks this guy was trying to provoke the plod. There were two German shepherds snapping at his heals and this did not effect what he was doing. If he was innocent his behaviour was not that of someone trying to get out of the way. Shame we don't have CCTV and police footage. How odd the rioters camera was just videoing what was happening. when he goes down he has not suffered a heart attack nor has he when he is yelling at the police, There didn't seem to be any gap between him going down and him sitting up yelling. The heart attack was probably more to do with him getting worked up than to do with the push. Why is there no footage before the event. Seeing what he was doing before hand would have been interesting. Also this was central london were was he coming home from to. he really does not look like a city type. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Inky Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 Also this was central london were was he coming home from to. he really does not look like a city type.He sold the Evening Standard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twerto Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 All though i do agree with the you in the manor in which he is walking. to answer you on a couple of questions.. going on the news report he owned a paper stall/shop around the corner from where this was. and also if you look at these pictures http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/04/protests_at_the_g20_summit.html you would be hard pushed not to be on some form of camera if you were in the area at this time... in some pictures there are more reporters/photographers than demonstrators. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArabiaTerra Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 Also this was central london were was he coming home from to. he really does not look like a city type.That day, "City types" were advised to dress casual to avoid the attention of the protesters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Inky Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 All though i do agree with the you in the manor in which he is walking.Er.. when did "walking in a manner likely to annoy a policeman" become an offence, let alone one punishable by a summary beating ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArabiaTerra Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 ^^^^^ It was probably in the same bill that made it illegal to film a policeman while he's on duty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.